Suraj Kishan Arora vs Govind Singh

A.L. Vaidya, J.—The demised premises consists of three rooms, kitchen, bath-room, W.C. situated in first floor of Rattan Niwas Oak Wood, Jakhoo, Shimla. Govind Singh, present Respondent submitted a petition u/s 14 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act), for the eviction of the tenant, the present Petitioner on the following grounds as pleaded by the landlord:

The premises are required by the Petitioner bonafide for his own use and occupation. The Petitioner alongwith his wife and two school going children is living in a rented premises and paying Rs. 700/- per month as rent to the landlord. The Petitioner besides paying exorbitant rent is having insufficient accommodation as the same being rented premises cannot be used in the manner the Petitioner likes to use. Besides this the landlord of the Petitioner is also pressing hard for vacating the house. The premises were purchased by the...only with a view to reside comfortably in his own house as his children are admitted in the school at Shimla and he has no such facility of good education in village. The Petitioner has no other accommodation or building within the area of M.C. Shimla and he has not acquired the vacant possession of any such premises within five years prior to the filing of this petition within the Shimla M.C. area.

The tenant contested the petition and pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The answering Respondent was the tenant of one Smt. Kamla Devi and on her demise, of Sh. Baldev Chauhan. He has further pleaded that he was inducted by Smt. Kamla Devi widow of Rattan Chand as tenant. The grounds for eviction have been denied. It has been pleaded that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as referred earlier. It was also pleaded that the present Petitioner was not residing in Shimla and had settled at Mauja Sheel, Tehsil Rohru and was an orchardist there. It was also averred that he had no professional responsibilities or other avocation at Shimla and he was also in occupation of spacious accommodation consisting of eight rooms which was situated in the top floor of the building in question. It was also pleaded that the Petitioner himself has surrendered this accommodation to Shri Baldev Chauhan for unknown reason and therefore, he was not entitled to any order of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, even if he has been -held to be landlord of the premises in dispute qua the answering Respondent.

Parties were put to trial on the following issues by the Rent Controller:

Whether the premises are required bonafide by the Petitioner for his own use and occupation as alleged? OPP.

Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between parties as alleged? OPP.

Relief.

Both the issues were decided in favour of the Petitioner-landlord and the petition was accordingly allowed.

The aforesaid order passed by the Rent Controller was assailed before the appellate authority on various pleas, but the Appellate Authority, also, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal.

The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present petition on various grounds, however, the main ground stressed has been that on the basis of the allegations made in the petition, the landlord claimed to have acquired the property by way of purchase and without disclosing the date of sale in his favour, the petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement was required to be dis-allowed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties and have tried to scrutinise them minutely.

The evidence examined by the parties with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlord may not be relevant to be referred or otherwise it would not be essential to dispose of the present revision petition, which I propose to decide on a proposition of law alone arising out of the pleadings of the parties.

The Act was enacted only to provide for the control of rents and evictions within the limitation of urban areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is only meant that of the rights and liabilities of the tenants as well as of the landlords were to be appreciated and enquired into, in case, some dispute arose in accordance with the Provisions of the Act. Special provisions have been provided under the Act to safeguard the rights of the tenants at the hands of landlords, who happen to exploit the alleged relation. Thus any eviction of the tenant from the premises situated in the urban areas of Himachal Pradesh has to be controlled and determined in accordance with various provisions referred in the Act. The provisions of the Act as such have to be strictly complied with in proceeding with the petitions for eviction and otherwise which could be legally preferred within those provisions.

In the present case, the landlord in his petition preferred u/s 14 of the Act, in answer to paras 12(a) and 12(b) has pleaded that the premises were old and the Petitioner was subsequent purchaser of the building. The Petitioner also pleaded that completion report of the construction of the premises was not obtained from the local authority by him, as the Petitioner was a subsequent purchaser.

Under para 18(a) of the petition, the grounds for eviction have been elaborated, which have already been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. In those grounds, again, it has been very specifically and in clear terms averred that the Petitioner has purchased the property with a view to reside comfortably in his own house as his children were admitted in the school at Shimla. This only meant that the landlord acquired this property by purchase or sale.

The petition for eviction has been preferred u/s 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act for his own occupation. At this stage. Section 14(6) of the Act can safely be reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:

14(6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall be made under this section on the ground specified in Sub-clause(i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section(3) unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of such acquisition.

In the present case, the Petitioner-landlord nowhere pleaded in the petition preferred by him, the date of sale or purchase of the premises under reference in his favour. There is a mandatory bar upon the landlord who has acquired the property by way of purchase or sale to prefer a petition for eviction for bonafide requirement within five years from the date of such acquisition.

In a case of present nature, where the landlord basis the ground of acquisition of his property to be the transfer in his favour, he has to specify in the petition itself the date of transfer, so as to bring the petition for eviction within the ambit of the aforesaid provisions of law. In case, the landlord fails to do so, he has to be asked by the Rent Controller for furnising the actual date of purchase in his favour so as to apply the aforesaid provisions of law accordingly.

In the present case, as the landlord had not complied with the aforesaid provisions of law, the tenant preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that the Petitioner-landlord be directed to furnish proper and better particulars. It was pleaded in the application that from the perusal of the petition in general and paras 12(a), 12(b), 14 and 18 of the petition, the Petitioner claimed himself to be the subsequent purchaser of the demised premises.

It may be referred here that the pleas taken by the landlord under paras 12(a),(b) and 18(a) of the petition have been already reproduced earlier, but under para-14, the landlord pleaded that the premises were let out to the Respondent by the previous owner and no agreement was executed by the Petitioner with the Respondent.

It has also been pleaded in this petition under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC that the landlord has not disclosed as to when he has purchased this property/premises from the previous owner though the same was relevant fact in order to determine the maintainability of the petition, because, in case he purchased the premises in question within a period of five years immediately preceding the filing of the present petition, the very maintainability of the, same would be prohibited u/s 14(6) of the Act. The tenant also averred that since the factum of the purchase of the demised premises was within the personal knolwledge of the Petitioner, he was bound to disclose the same to the Respondent. Through this petition, it was prayed that the Petitioner be directed to furnish proper and better particulars as to the purchase of the building by him.

This application was replied by the landlord. He gave very evasive reply and pleaded therein that all the necessary particulars required for determination of the dispute in the petition have been furnished by the Petitioner and the tenant has filed this application just to delay the proceedings, which was evident from the perusal of the record. It was also pleaded that the applicant has not filed the reply deliberately for the last about two years and after repeated adjournments to file the reply he has come to the Court with this application. The landlord pleaded that the application be dis-al1owed.

On 18.4.1990, the Rent Controller passed the following order:

18.4.90: Present: Sh. Parmod Bhimta Adv. vice Counsel for the Petitioner.

Sh. H.C. Sharma Adv. Counsel for the Respondent.

Heard on the application Under Order 6 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. Whereas, the period in respect to the acquisition of the property of the Petitioner is relevant for the adjudication of the matter under controversy hence, the Petitioner is directed to furnish the particulars in respect to the time/period when the demised premises in question were purchased by him. The application stands accordingly allowed. The particulars/amended petition in this context be filed on 7.5.90.

Sd/- Rent Controller (I), Shimla.

On 11.9.1990, the Rent Controller passed the order that better particulars were filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner.

Actually the particulars as required vide order 18.4.90 had not been filed as is revealed from the order passed by the Rent Controller on 15.10.1990, which is being reproduced hereunder:

15.10.90: Present: Sh. Ajay Kochar, Adv.vice Counsel for Petitioner.

Sh. K.R. Thakur, Adv., vice Counsel for Respondent.

The order dated 18.4.1990 has not been so far complied by the Petitioner. Last adjournment is granted. Let the said order be complied positively by next date failing which the petition shall be dismissed by order of the Court for non-compliance of the Court order. Put up accordingly on 20.11.90.

Sd/- Rent Controller (I), Shimla.

On 20.11.90, the Rent Controller in his order referred that Sh. Ajay Kochar, Advocate for the Petitioner has appeared, who stated that the copy of the sale-deed stands already filed. Thereafter, the petition proceeded.

At this stage, it may be referred that photocopy of the sale-deed had been filed which is Ext.PW.1/A on record, but admittedly, this is not the sale-deed in favour of the present landlord alleged to have been executed by the previous landlord as has been pleaded by the Petitioner in his petition referred to above.

The Petitioner also uptil today did not select to file the alleged sale-deed in his favour and also to file particulars/amended petition in this context, in compliance of the order of the trial Court dated 18.4.90.

During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the landlord in a way conceded that the case of the Petitioner as tried before the two forums below was not on the basis of the purchase of the property under reference as pleaded by the Petitioner, but on the basis of his inheriting the right of ownership alongwith others.

There is no doubt that on the basis of the evidence brought on record, probably the property under reference was previously owned by Smt. Jhuggi Devi wife of Krishan Lal and Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Ram Rattan, through some sale in their favour. After the death of Smt. Jhuggi Devi, the mutation of her inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Govind Singh, the present alleged landlord and Lokender Singh, his brother. This is so revealed from Ext.PW.1/B, certified copy of the mutation.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-landlord has very strongly contended that on the basis of inheritance, he has become one of the co-owners of the demised premises and on that basis was legally competent to file the petition u/s 14 of the Act, inasmuch as he comes within the definition of the landlord by way of inheritance and otherwise also he has been receiving the rent, though this aspect of the matter is being disputed. It has also been submitted that in the background even if the landlord''s plea to have acquired the property by way of purchase is ignored, it will not, in any way, prejudice the case of the tenant, who remains as tenant under the landlord, whether the landlord have acquired the rights by sale or by inheritance. I, think, it is not so, simple a matter, as has been contended.

As referred earlier, the Special Act has been provided with various provisions covering the rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant, moreso, the provisions regarding the eviction of the tenant and those provisions have to be strictly complied with. There are no two opinions about the same.

I, fail to undearstand the line of arguments advanced on behalf of the landlord. In case, the landlord does not amend or change his pleadings, then, of course, in not disclosing the date of the sale in his favour is a circumstance most prejudicial to the rights of the tenant. In case, the date of purchase was within five years of the filing of the petition, the petition of present nature on the grounds of bonafide requirement could not be legally entertained and disposed of. Such a petition for eviction on the aforesaid ground could be submitted after five years of the same as was required u/s 14(6) of the Act. Very valuable right in this behalf is to remain in occupation of the demised premises for five years from the date of purchase in favour of the landlord and the landlord during this period on the ground of bonafide requirement is not entitled to file the eviction petition. Here in the present case, the sole ground taken was bonafide requirement and with the aforesaid context it was imperative upon the landlord to have disclosed the date of sale in his favour.

The word "bonafide requirement" in itself implies the honest intention on the part of the landlord. The circumstances proved in this case reflected not the bonafide but otherwise intention of the landlord. The tenant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC which was allowed and the order uptil today had not been complied with by the landlord. He has purposely and intentionally not complied with the directions issued by the Rent Controller. Not only that, he did not care to amend the petition uptil today. In case, he wanted to base his claim on the basis of rights inherited by him from the previous landlord, he could have taken those steps at the earliest possible time. Neither the sale-deed, as ordered by the Rent Controller nor the petition on the basis of that sale-deed was amended. The Controller''s orders were flouted and the intention of the landlord in this view of the matter speaks for itself.

It has been contended on behalf of the landlord before this Court that the point being stressed and as discussed above, was not taken up before the Appellate Authority and according to the learned Counsel, the tenant was debarred to raise such plea in the present revision petition I think there is no such bar. The point raised is (sic) a legal one, which goes to the root of the petition. The revisional powers of this (sic) the Act are not limited (sic) this Court is empowered to examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such an order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto, as it may deem fit.

Here is a case, where the aforesaid power, vested in this Court, is required to be exercised in order to scrutinise the legality or propriety of the orders passed by the two forums below for the eviction of the tenant ort the basis provisions referred u/s 14 of the Act.

Needless to say the averments made in the petition u/s 14 of the Act would be the base for granting the relief in favour of the landlord. In the present case, the landlord not only failed to bring on record the alleged purchase deed in his favour, but also failed to submit the particulars regarding the same, as was required by a specific order passed by the Rent Controller in this behalf. Whatever allegations had been made in the petition, the landlord in order to seek relief in his favour was to prove and satisfy the rent Controller, the following aspects:

(1) He became the landlord on the basis of the purchase of property under reference in his favour, as the present Petitioner was the tenant under the previous owner.

(2) The purchase by the landlord from the previous owner of the (sic) premises was beyond five years from the date of filing of the Petitioner. (sic)

The aforesaid aspects 1 and 2 have not at all been proved and established by the landlord and for aspect No. 3 evidence has been examined and in this view of the matter, the petition for eviction cannot be allowed under the provisions of the Act, moreso, as happened in the present case, the landlord uptil today has flouted the valid orders passed by the Rent Controller without caring to assail them in a proper forum.

The learned Counsel for the landlord has tried to find support from various citations referred by him, which may not be discussed here, whereby one of the co-owners was legally competent to file a petition of present nature for the eviction of the tenant. This proposition is not at all involved in the facts of the present case as has been amply made clear above.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the orders passed by the Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are not only illegal but unsustainable on any grounds whatsoever, and, as such those orders are quashed. The petition preferred u/s 14 of the Act by the landlord is dismissed with costs. The Revision Petition is accordingly accepted.